Sen. McCain has staked his brand on three key points. First, that he’s a “maverick” with a history of “bucking” his party’s system. Second, that he is the candidate for governmental reform, the guy who fought against pork barrel spending and will continue to do so. And third, that he’s the veterans’ candidate in this election, a claim predicated entirely on the fact that he himself is a veteran.
For regular Americans and vets like myself, that claim was probably strong enough to last completely unchecked- up until the showdown over the Webb-Hagel GI Bill. Sen. Webb (a Vietnam veteran and an appointed member of the Regan Administration), backed by Republican senators and war veterans Chuck Hagel and John Warner, introduced the “Post 9/11 GI Bill,” which we called in this magazine, the “GI Bill Overhaul”. This bill sought to scale the existing educational benefits for veterans up to their equivalent worth when originally introduced.
The DoD, Bush administration, and several Republicans, including many hawks who claim to be advocates for veterans, began to deride the bill as too expensive and introduced a counter bill with watered down benefits which were actually rewards linked to longer service requirements. The main sponsor of this counter bill was John McCain.
After all the rhetoric about “supporting the troops” that we troops have had to endure, the Post 9/11 GI Bill was an opportunity to actually support troops in a literal, logical, and needed way. But McCain campaigned heavily against the bipartisan GI Bill and then abstained from voting on it. Veterans, myself included, were stunned. John McCain, who had become something of an icon for independent veterans, was drawing a line in the sand and putting himself on the other side.
At this time, I began wondering what McCain’s position really was on veterans’ issues; he was a war veteran himself and I had often given him the benefit of the doubt. In the debate last week, McCain made what has become for him a trademark comment about us veterans: “I love them and I’ll take care of them and they know that I’ll take care of them.” In the past those comments had seemed heartfelt, but after the GI Bill showdown, they seemed like transparent political double talk, aimed at sympathetic voters. But what was the actual score? Was the GI Bill the tip of the iceberg or just a red herring?
I did a search of recent veteran-related legislation and how the candidates have voted:
| Title | Description | McCain | Obama | Result | S Amdt 4803 to HR 2642: In the nature of substitute.
22 May 08 | Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 [Includes Webb-Hagel Post 9/11 GI Bill] | NV | Y | Accepted | Webb Amdt. No. 2909.
19 Sep 07 | To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. [A/K/A "dwell time"] | N | Y | Rejected | Thune Amdt. No. 3704.
4 May 06 | To provide, with an offset, $20,000,000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs for Medical Facilities. | N | N | Rejected | Akaka Amdt. No. 3642 as Amended.
26 Apr 06 | To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. | N | Y | Rejected | Akaka Amdt. No. 3007.
14 Mar 06 | To increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. | N | Y | Rejected | Burns Amdt. No. 2999.
14 Mar 06 | To provide increased funding for veterans health programs, and to negate the need for enrollment fees and increase in pharmacy co-payments. | Y | Y | Accepted | Motion to Waive CBA Boxer Amdt. No. 2634.
17 Nov 05 | To provide an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder. | N | Y | Rejected | Motion to Waive CBA Stabenow Amdt. No. 1937.
5 Oct 05 | To ensure that future funding for health care for former members of the Armed Forces takes into account changes in population and inflation. | N | Y | Rejected | Murray Amdt. No. 1052 As Amended.
29 Jun 05 | Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration. | NV | Y | Accepted | Nelson Amdt. No. 2745.
10 Mar 04 | To create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. | N | N/A | Rejected | Motion To Table Dodd Amdt. No. 1817.
2 Oct 03 | [Amendment would] provide an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000. | Y | N/A | Tabled | Motion to Table Landrieu Amdt. No. 452.
2 Apr 03 | [Amendment would] appropriate $1,047,000,000 for procurement for the National Guard and Reserves. | Y | N/A | Tabled | Original language from senate.gov, my notes in brackets
Y: Yea, N: Nay, NV: No Vote, N/A: Not in Office, CBA: Budget Act |
McCain’s website lists several major topics on the Veterans’ Issues page. Some noteworthy ones include “Improving Veterans’ Health Care”, “Caring for Our Disabled Veterans”, and “Providing Veterans with the Benefits They Have Earned”. His voting record, shown above, says otherwise.
To be fair, I am simplifying the legislative process substantially. Legislation has many layers and is interwoven with individual delegates’ political goals, its own fiscal impact, the influence of lobbyists, and the agendas of each party. Some counter arguments (that I haven’t heard yet) could be:
1. John McCain voted against some of those amendments because they were bundled with appropriations requests he didn’t support or were in themselves superfluous.
Fine. If John McCain is going to be the anti pork barrel reformer he claims to be, than some consistency in that arena will convince me he’s serious. But he’s also shown consistency in voting against legislation to support the veterans for whom he claims to be the ultimate representative. If fiscal conservatism is his excuse for his voting record, then I think that is a compelling description of his actual priorities.
We need a president who is able to tell the difference between wasted government spending (which certainly abounds) and caring for American veterans. You cannot say our country’s veterans deserve the best care and benefits we can give them but then be too stingy to pay for them, especially when several of these veteran care initiatives sought to be paid for by closing tax loopholes.
But, what about McCain’s 90% + voting record in support of President Bush? President Bush’s administration has outspent Lyndon Johnson and has turned a year 2000 government surplus of $236 billion into a deficit in 2002 and every year beyond, including a projected record $482 billion deficit in 2009. Where’s the fiscal conservatism in that?
2. I can hear the whiners saying that these votes were symbolic.
The congressional resolution to congratulate the Boston Celtics for winning the 2008 NBA Championship was symbolic. Appropriating funds to provide body armor for National Guard troops, improvements in veterans’ healthcare, and upgrades to veterans’ educational benefits is anything but symbolic; this is as real as it gets when it comes to “supporting the troops”. And even so, what symbolism can we draw from a consistent voting record to defeat these bills?
Sen. McCain has been flooding the media with his pro-veteran rhetoric, and convincingly so. Except, that it’s just not true. Take nothing away from his personal sacrifice as a warrior during Vietnam but understand this: that service does not entitle him to claim America’s veterans as an automatic endorsement, particularly when his voting record on veterans’ issues receives a “D” from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20% score by the Disabled American Veterans.
John McCain wants to convince America he's the candidate the veterans prefer. Certainly, we once did. Today, we can't afford to.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment